TERESITA P.

FAJARDO
vs
ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ
A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
 FACTS:
Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo,
Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty. Alvarez) to defend her in
criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental
Health. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did not enter his
appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings.

Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee. Atty. Alvarez said that
he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and acquaintances working at the
Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita dismissed.
 However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez talked, the Office of the
Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending the filing of a criminal complaint
against Teresita, and her dismissal from service, respectively.

Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she gave.
Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed to fulfill this
promise. Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed.

ISSUES:
Whether or not respondent Alvarez is authorized to engage in the private practice of law;
and
Whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is reasonable under the
principle of quantum meruit.
 RULING:
Respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.

Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. In the context of this case,
his surreptitious actuations reveal illicit intent. Not only did he do unauthorized practice, his
acts also show badges of offering to peddle influence in the Office of the Ombudsman.

In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center
for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative
Order No. 21, series of 1999. However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit
against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest.
 Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the
requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center and the
Philippine government as a whole. There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a
public officer, an employee of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government.
By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same
employer he swore to serve.

Likewise, we find that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it appear to complainant
that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who could help them get a favorable
decision in complainant's case.
 Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01, and
1.02 which prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct. Respondent's act of ensuring that the case will be dismissed because of his personal
relationships with officers or employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and
dishonest. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to always
"uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."

In relation, Canon 13 mandates that lawyers "shall rely upon the merits of his [or her] cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of
influencing the court."

A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a favorable outcome
for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the records, the
court ruled that there is enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence peddling.

Respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is ordered to return the amount of
P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.

Principles: Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the
practice of their profession. Respondent violated the oath he took when he proposed to gain a
favorable outcome for complainant's case by resorting to his influence among staff in the Office
where the case was pending.
THANK YOU!